Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

brickster69

brickster69 wrote: »

And is a small word.

This decision shall cease to apply on 31 May 2019 in the event that the United Kingdom has not held elections to the
European Parliament in accordance with applicable Union law and has not ratified the Withdrawal Agreement
by 22 May 2019.

This means that they have to satisfy both conditions for the decision to cease to apply, they have satisfied one condition but not the other.
They did not ratify the withdrawal agreement but they did hold elections.
So therefore the conditions that cancel the agreement do not apply, the agreement is still in place.

eire4

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The Scottish hustings for the Tory leadership guys tonight and Hunt comes out with this bit of democracy in action

https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/1147176630843953152

Not surprising really. Classic Tory arrogance. Will likely only further motivate and strengthen the movement for a second independence referendum in Scotland if brexit does indeed official come to pass October 31.

Strazdas

eire4 wrote: »

Not surprising really. Classic Tory arrogance. Will likely only further motivate and strengthen the movement for a second independence referendum in Scotland if brexit does indeed official come to pass October 31.

"I'm a democrat and I remember that in that independence referendum, the SNP very clearly said that this would settle the outcome for a generation and I think they need to be true to what they promised the Scottish electorate, just as we are true to what we promised the British electorate in delivering Brexit."

This absolute garbage again. A country can hold one, two, five or ten referendums on the same subject if it so desires.

A Dub in Glasgo

Strazdas wrote: »

"I'm a democrat and I remember that in that independence referendum, the SNP very clearly said that this would settle the outcome for a generation and I think they need to be true to what they promised the Scottish electorate, just as we are true to what we promised the British electorate in delivering Brexit."

This absolute garbage again. A country can hold one, two, five or ten referendums on the same subject if it so desires.

You see the SNP did not say what the Tories claim they said, Salmond said in an interview with Marr in 2014 that it was 'in my opinion and it is just my opinion' and 'it is my view'

And no one can deny the change to the landscape, since IndyRef

Strazdas

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You see the SNP did not say what the Tories claim they said, Salmond said in an interview with Marr in 2014 that it was 'in my opinion and it is just my opinion' and 'it is my view'

It's funny how these 'will of the people' merchants actually despise referendums. As soon as one goes their way, they become violently opposed to ever holding another one again and even claim it would be 'undemocratic'.

They are authoritarians in fact and see referendums as merely a tool that can be cynically used to get their way.

The Brexit crowd are the least democratic people in the UK, not the most.

fash

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Everyone can think you've bought a house but if the law says that you haven't then you should be bothered, or is this a little subtle for you?

After 12 years the house is mine anyway by adverse possession - nicely illustrating the general point that even if there were some "Freeman of the land" style twisted interpretation through which you can argue that the UK has already left, it doesn't matter because the relevant actors act in accordance the UK not having left.

eagle eye

Strazdas wrote:

It's funny how these 'will of the people' merchants actually despise referendums. As soon as one goes their way, they become violently opposed to ever holding another one again and even claim it would be 'undemocratic'.

It doesn't matter which sides win a referendum, they will not want another one. It's ridiculous to use that argument against anybody.

Tropheus

Good piece by Marina Hyde in The Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/05/ann-widdecomb-political-exhumation-insult-ignorance-brexit-party?CMP=share_btn_tw

Ann Widdecombe’s political exhumation adds insult to ignorance in Strasbourg

Article in the independent.co.uk where junker wants to do away with the veto on tax. That won't help the remain side. It certainly won't help us either.

Professor Moriarty

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Article in the independent.co.uk where junker wants to do away with the veto on tax. That won't help the remain side. It certainly won't help us either.

Would you have a link? Can't find it.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Would you have a link? Can't find it.

I can't link on this phone.

I'm only just noticing it's from 15th January 2019.

lawred2

He's on the record saying this repeatedly.. this isn't anything new from Juncker..

And to be honest maybe it's high time MNs paid a bit (lot) more tax. The profits and cash piles are obscene. And super rich super powerful corporations are not exactly conducive to heathy societies..

Maybe the EU should lead the way and have a common tax base or common tax code for multi nationals..

Either way, that's a separate argument. The fact remains that this isn't anything new from Juncker

PeadarCo

Deleted User wrote:

Article in the independent.co.uk where junker wants to do away with the veto on tax. That won't help the remain side. It certainly won't help us either.

To be fair that's not exactly new. There are some EU politicians that would like to see the tax veto go. However it doesn't matter a damm if their bosses the member states don't agree to it. I can't imagine Ireland is the only country that would like to see the veto stay.

Professor Moriarty

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I can't link on this phone.

I'm only just noticing it's from 15th January 2019.

Yeah that's what I thought. No worries.

Professor Moriarty

PeadarCo wrote: »

To be fair that's not exactly new. There are some EU politicians that would like to see the tax veto go. However it doesn't matter a damm if their bosses the member states don't agree to it. I can't imagine Ireland is the only country that would like to see the veto stay.

Juncker is on the way out anyway.

Christy42

eagle eye wrote: »

It doesn't matter which sides win a referendum, they will not want another one. It's ridiculous to use that argument against anybody.

Hunt does not have to want one but if the Scottish people want one he should grant it anyway. He is not obliged to campaign for Scottish independence.

They are everything they hate about the EU (and a few things they made up about the EU too) and they seem to glory in it while giving out to the EU.

Sam Russell

Christy42 wrote: »

Hunt does not have to want one but if the Scottish people want one he should grant it anyway. He is not obliged to campaign for Scottish independence.

They are everything they hate about the EU (and a few things they made up about the EU too) and they seem to glory in it while giving out to the EU.

Is that not the cornerstone of the hypocrite? Do as I say, not as I do.

The whole Sottish Indy question is the mirror of the EU/Brexit issue - 'Stronger Together' vs 'Take back Control' Make our own Laws etc.

The irony of this attitude is beyond parody.

That Brexit Party charade in the EU parliament being more of the same - and on the day the USA are celebrating the revolution against British tyranny and Colonialism, she rants against the EU's colonisation of the UK - much of which was as a result of British pressure within the EU to set it up. It would be rejected as a sketch on Spitting Image as being beyond belief.

BBC - can you replace QT with 'Spitting Image'? - or even 'Yes, Minister'? I would love to see the puppets of AW or NF.

Strazdas

eagle eye wrote: »

It doesn't matter which sides win a referendum, they will not want another one. It's ridiculous to use that argument against anybody.

It's not ridiculous. Three years have passed, the thing they voted for has still not been implemented and opinion polls have swung against the option.

That is a glaring problem right there. Trying to shut down talk of a second referendum in these quite exceptional circumstances and even accusing people of being "traitors" for asking for one shows they are no democrats.

Sam Russell

Strazdas wrote: »

It's not ridiculous. Three years have passed, the thing they voted for has still not been implemented and opinion polls have swung against the option.

That is a glaring problem right there. Trying to shut down talk of a second referendum in these quite exceptional circumstances and even accusing people of being "traitors" for asking for one shows they are no democrats.

Democracy is a stranger in the UK (because of FPTP and pseudo devolution).

A very large proportion of UK MPs are elected in safe seats, and most are elected with less than 50% of the popular vote. The UK has not elected a single party Gov that has a majority of the popular vote since 1932. The second chamber (House of Lords) is made up of hereditary peers, Bishops of the CoE, and political appointments by the major parties. The head of state is a hereditary Monarch. The HoC, although notionally sovereign, is tied by procedures that the executive can override even though they do not have a majority using the equivalent of the US executive order - the statuary instrument - so called Henry VIII powers.

The West Lothian Question suggests that the English MPs want the HoC to be the devolved assembly for England by disallowing any non-English MPs the right to vote of purely English matters. If they want a devolved assembly for England, they should set one up - preferably away from Westmister.

We can take lessons on democracy from the UK when they start exhibiting it.

Good news for the UK car industry for a change.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1c-ir_E2EM

The boss of Jaguar Land Rover has told this programme the government must support investment in low-carbon technologies if it wants to speed up the shift to greener cars. Today the company announced a massive investment at its Castle Bromwich plant in Birmingham to allow it to build new electric versions of its Jaguar range. That should secure 2,500 jobs and will provide some reassurance that the possibility of a no-deal Brexit will be less damaging than feared for the car industry. But he warned that there could still be tough decisions to come on Brexit.

brickster69

Deleted User wrote: »

This means that they have to satisfy both conditions for the decision to cease to apply, they have satisfied one condition but not the other.
They did not ratify the withdrawal agreement but they did hold elections.
So therefore the conditions that cancel the agreement do not apply, the agreement is still in place.

Try reading it again in English.

What you are saying is " they have to satisfy both conditions for the decision to cease to apply " but they have only fulfilled one, so in that case they have then completed both ?

Nody

For those wondering how a Brexit mindset looks like here including:

We are crying out for a strong person. It is their strength that we are seeking. Boris offers that. We want someone strong. We haven’t had a strong leader since Margaret Thatcher. Boris is the nearest and the best. He is a strong man. He is a heavyweight.”

“There is this feeling that we’ve lost our identity,” Linda says. She is not young, but she is fiercely articulate. She is well-informed about politics, and she is anything but stupid. She spent 22 years working at Carl Zeiss research, the world-leading optical lens manufacturers.

“We were the postwar generation. My parents went through two world wars and they were horrified at the EU. Your identity is sapped out of you. And in the end, you don’t feel any pride in your own country. It’s our identity, and it will get worse and worse and worse.”

cml387

There was a remarkable interview with the ex-head of MI-6 on Today this morning.

Sir John Sawyers said that the the British political scene was a having a nervous breakdown, and that Cameron was very unwise to call the election in the first place.

More details here.

It strikes me that if the Labour party had pushed an ideology of the extreme left as far as the Conservatives are now cleaving to the far right, there would have been tanks on the streets.

cml387

cml387 wrote: »

There was a remarkable interview with the ex-head of MI-6 on Today this morning.

Sir John Sawyers said that the the British political scene was a having a nervous breakdown, and that Cameron was very unwise to call the election in the first place.

More details here.

It strikes me that if the Labour party had pushed an ideology of the extreme left as far as the Conservatives are now cleaving to the far right, there would have been tanks on the streets.

There might well be tanks in the future, but the traffic wardens are quicker!

Foghladh

Nody wrote: »

For those wondering how a Brexit mindset looks like here including:

It's the viewpoint of two people who support Brexit certainly but then there are many different types of people who voted to leave. Just as there were in those who voted to remain. Given the fact that it's an opinion piece in The Independent I wouldn't exactly stamp it non biased. It ticks all the boxes for the readership though through its references: Old people, Union Jack, Maggie Thatcher.

Foghladh

cml387 wrote: »

There was a remarkable interview with the ex-head of MI-6 on Today this morning.

Sir John Sawyers said that the the British political scene was a having a nervous breakdown, and that Cameron was very unwise to call the election in the first place.

More details here.

It strikes me that if the Labour party had pushed an ideology of the extreme left as far as the Conservatives are now cleaving to the far right, there would have been tanks on the streets.

What constitutes the far right of the Conservatives? Really.

Spanish Eyes

We are living through a history where no one has a clue what to do about it.

They really don't.

First Up

Foghladh wrote:

It's the viewpoint of two people who support Brexit certainly but then there are many different types of people who voted to leave. Just as there were in those who voted to remain. Given the fact that it's an opinion piece in The Independent I wouldn't exactly stamp it non biased. It ticks all the boxes for the readership though through its references: Old people, Union Jack, Maggie Thatcher.

Anyone who feels their identity is threatened by being in the EU doesn't have much of an identity.

eagle eye

Strazdas wrote:

It's not ridiculous. Three years have passed, the thing they voted for has still not been implemented and opinion polls have swung against the option.
That is a glaring problem right there. Trying to shut down talk of a second referendum in these quite exceptional circumstances and even accusing people of being "traitors" for asking for one shows they are no democrats.

The only way you get a second referendum is if the government are unhappy with the result. Remember Lisbon here? We got a second referendum but we never got a third.